Great idea, what a bunch of dummies we are around here not to think of that.

Bada Bing Bada Boom....

TDog pretty much summed up the fundamental baseball culture needed to pull up out of this nosedive of the organization. You as well I as I know it always starts with "Strength Up The Middle", Contact hitting, Good pitching and top notch fielding. Out of the 4 the Sox are lacking in three parts of the equation..

BK59

__________________
Big Klu says... "When you step in the box you go to war"..

One of the strengths of the Sox organization has always been its loyalty, but there is a fine between loyalty and complacency or business as usual. Whether its in hiring coaches, managers and general managers from within to drafting relatives of the organization, the whole thing has gotten unhealthy. Loyalty often means keep your mouth shut. A healthy dose of an outsider coming in and addressing problems from the clubhouse to scouting to parking lot operations is sorely needed. Hell, Rocky Wirtz came in, saw how dismal concessions were at the UC and fired his own brother.

So what you're saying is we need to be ****ty for a long time, hope the owner dies, and become trendy. Got it.

First of all, I don't hope the owner dies. The team will be bad, at least in the short run since turning this around will take more than one season. And no, not become trendy, but give the fans a team they can more identify with instead of running things from the top down which is how the Sox have done for years. So I don't think you get it.

My main point about Rocky Wirtz is that he saw some changes needed to be made in the way the club was run. That needs to happen with the Sox.

Is my analogy with the Hawks absolutely perfect? No. But in the Sixties and Seventies, that was an elite team that was run into the ground. Success after that came only occasionally. Now the team is winning again and the fans are back. And a lot of this started at the top.

Now the team is winning again and the fans are back. And a lot of this started at the top.

I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.

I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.

That's adds up for me, too, but I have always thought the problems the Sox have had are more complicated than that. But I do think fans will also care more when ownership can instill confidence. The Sox ownership are not doing this. Period.

That's adds up for me, too, but I have always thought the problems the Sox have had are more complicated than that. But I do think fans will also care more when ownership can instill confidence. The Sox ownership are not doing this. Period.

I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.

You need to have good coaching at the major league level as well. Also, unless you are strictly going to get better players from free agency, you will need better scouting and minor league instructors.

I think you're giving ownership way too much credit, the Hawks are back because they simply fell into a couple of good players and built a good team around them. If the Hawks were still the laughingstock losers they were for basically my entire life, they'd probably still be drawing 3,000 fans at the UC.

Get better players = Win more games = Fans care more. I'm not the world's best mathematician, but that adds up to me.

Yup. Pretty much all they did was pile up high draft picks, do what every other team in the league does, and reap the benefits of being the only hockey team in the 3rd largest city in the country.

1) In my lifetime the Blackhawks ownership was probably the worse Chicago ownership of the 5 major Chicago teams. I remember in the 1960's when the Blackhawks had Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita and sold out every home game with 16,666 customers. The Blackhawks owner (Arthur Wirtz) was so cheap and greedy he would only have the 2nd and 3rd periods of every home game on radio. He wouldn't put the 1st period on radio. He thought it would hurt the home attendance. He also commited one of the great blunders in Chicago sports history by not resigning Bobby Hull. It took many years for the Blackhawks to recover from not resigning Bobby Hull.
2) To change the subject, there's a new book out called White Sox Heroes. Its about the players who played for the White Sox in the 1960's. The author is Carroll Conklin. I'm not familar with the author but just skimming through the book he talks about some forgotten White Sox stars from that era. I'm sure older White Sox fans will like the book. Reading about the White Sox players from the 1960's sure beats watching the present 2013 White Sox.